November 27, 2008


What's not to like?

So the Conservatives want to axe the $1.95-per-vote subsidy given to the various political parties, at a cost of $27 million each year.

I support this for multiple reasons:
  1. It's the right thing to do. Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize political campaigns in the first place? Leave it to those Canadians who care enough about a party to send their own money.
  2. It's ideologically consistent. Stephen Harper was opposed to the subsidy when it was first proposed in 2003.
  3. It shows that politicians are willing to include themselves in the upcoming belt-tightening.
  4. As a bonus, it completely screws the Bloc, and to a lesser extent the Liberals. :)

Two thumbs up!

Update: This post has apparently caused Canadian Cynic to call me an "asshole." I will wear it as a badge of honour.

Labels: , , ,

Mr. Harper’s statement “deficits are essential” and his pledge that “unprecedented fiscal stimulus is being considered” exemplifies an extremely ambitious, ruthless political animal who has demonstrated enthusiasm for selling out any small-c conservative principles he ever had for his office.

Rather than directing us to be pragmatic, he should be advocating conservative pragmatism. Harper must sell numerous assets and cut the $200 billion operation budget big time which would permit him to equivalently cut payroll taxes; thereby putting money quickly in the hands of those who would immediately spend it. Tax cuts would get money spent earlier than infrastructure spending which necessitates planning, and environmental studies, ect.

Legitimate small-c fiscal, social and judicial conservatives, who already feel abandoned, are adamant that, under no circumstance, should Canada practice deficit spending. As Don Drummond was quoted as saying the other day: ” That’s not something Ottawa should take lightly,”

The Conservative party is the largest beneficiary of the political tax credit, which sees donations to political parties reimbursed at least 50% using public money. I don't see Flaherty suggesting that that huge subsidy be revoked. Far from being hit the hardest, the Conservative Party will be the best situated party if this change goes through.

Furthermore, campaign expenses at the riding level are also routinely reimbursed for the larger parties with public money.

If the Conservatives really were that concerned about our money, they wouldn't have wasted $300 million of our money on a useless election.
As I've said before, it’s a bad idea to give people money so they can pay for services to persuade us why we should give them money — and votes. Good post, Hand.

You can see my latest online discussion on the current crisis at
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?